As reported here :
http://www.medievalists.net/2015/09/29/new-location-for-the-battle-of-crecy-discovered/
There has been some doubt about the whether the traditional location of Crecy is right so here is a new hypothesis. I think I'll reserve judgement until I've read the full argument but immediately found myself hoping that some degree of archaeological investigation backs this up.
The book containing the evidence looks good, but at £75 it may have to wait while I save up :(
Did you miss that the £25 paperback is out as well? See http://liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/products/59853
I could swear when I checked Amazon, the paperback wasn't available. Must take more care. However, £25 is more in my league :)
Lt Col AH Burne mentions burial pits associated with the traditional site (and, perhaps closer to his heart, period cannonballs found there). It will be interesting to see how the Livingston/De Vries casebook treats these.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 29, 2015, 10:26:46 PM
I could swear when I checked Amazon, the paperback wasn't available.
It was not. Looking at the publication date of the paperback shows why. ;)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 30, 2015, 10:46:09 AM
It will be interesting to see how the Livingston/De Vries casebook treats these.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 29, 2015, 10:26:46 PM
Yes, I already have a shed load of questions but the archaeology is critical. The current site is bafflingly short of archaeological evidence and is one of its weaknesses, so a better site does need to display more evidence in that regard, as well as meeting needs like the presence of a windmill on the hill and more on the nature of the "massive" ditch, both of which an archaeological survey could reveal
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 30, 2015, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 29, 2015, 10:26:46 PM
I could swear when I checked Amazon, the paperback wasn't available.
It was not. Looking at the publication date of the paperback shows why. ;)
Huh??
30 Sept 2015, the same as the hardback.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 30, 2015, 11:52:04 AM
Yes, I already have a shed load of questions but the archaeology is critical. The current site is bafflingly short of archaeological evidence and is one of its weaknesses, so a better site does need to display more evidence in that regard, as well as meeting needs like the presence of a windmill on the hill and more on the nature of the "massive" ditch, both of which an archaeological survey could reveal
Apparently, so Lt. Col. Burne tells us, the windmill on the traditional site was demolished by a 'patriotic' Frenchman in revenge for France's diplomatic climbdown over Fashoda. One wonders what earlier 'patriotic' Frenchmen may have done.
That said, if the new site can come up with the archaeological goods it would pretty much seal the deal. Otherwise we shall be left pondering possible stretches in interpretation of the new evidence.
I would suggest a two-stage exercise, first looking for what pointers in the sources click for the traditional site, and then doing the same for the new one. Putting all the source information together should reveal a pattern, and this pattern should suit one site better than the other. (This is of course easy for someone who does not have to do the hard work of comparison to say ... :) )
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 30, 2015, 02:44:36 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 30, 2015, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 29, 2015, 10:26:46 PM
I could swear when I checked Amazon, the paperback wasn't available.
It was not. Looking at the publication date of the paperback shows why. ;)
Huh??
30 Sept 2015, the same as the hardback.
Call me Mr Cynic, but is Amazon going to announce the paperback before they have milked the hardback market for at least a month? ;)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 30, 2015, 08:45:30 PM
Apparently, so Lt. Col. Burne tells us, the windmill on the traditional site was demolished by a 'patriotic' Frenchman in revenge for France's diplomatic climbdown over Fashoda. One wonders what earlier 'patriotic' Frenchmen may have done.
I doubt the demolished mill was the original on the site either, so the historical damage done was none too serious even if the traditional site prevails :) What we would be looking for is the foundation for a post mill on the new hill I reckon. This would not be conclusive (Ayton and Preston note several windmills or foundations around the traditional site, so its possible there are plenty more about) but it would be a good start.
Another item would be the burial pits; Burne mentions that "...
of the grave-pits dug after the battle, two were still visible in 1844, one on the spot now occupied by the beet factory and the other high up the Vallee aux Clercs where a slight ravine strikes north to Wadicourt."
So we are looking for a windmill with a view, or at least its period-relevant foundations (which essentially means earlier than 1346 as opposed to later than 1346)
plus burial pits from the battle (as opposed to the Black Death)
plus terrain which makes sense in the context of the battle.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 30, 2015, 10:12:01 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 30, 2015, 08:45:30 PM
Apparently, so Lt. Col. Burne tells us, the windmill on the traditional site was demolished by a 'patriotic' Frenchman in revenge for France's diplomatic climbdown over Fashoda. One wonders what earlier 'patriotic' Frenchmen may have done.
I doubt the demolished mill was the original on the site either, so the historical damage done was none too serious even if the traditional site prevails :)
True, it would presumably have been rebuilt at least once: a quick internet search suggests that the working life of a windmill is about 150 years. One wonders what the then-current owner thought of the 'patriotic impulse' ...
I'm intrigued by the burial pits.
Just how far did you drag bodies after a battle?
I'd guess that it's probably easier to drag bodies than it is to dig the hole, so you'd go for perhaps the nearest patch of suitable ground and drag the bodies to that.
After all, you've plenty of horses, tie a rope around half a dozen dead men and the horse could pull them.
Wonder if there was more solemnity with 'ours' as opposed to 'theirs' or whether they tipped the commoners in the same pits
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 02, 2015, 05:45:15 PM
I'm intrigued by the burial pits.
Just how far did you drag bodies after a battle?
I suspect perhaps a bit less than the three-and-a-bit miles between the traditional Crecy site and the new proposed one.
Quote
I'd guess that it's probably easier to drag bodies than it is to dig the hole, so you'd go for perhaps the nearest patch of suitable ground and drag the bodies to that.
After all, you've plenty of horses, tie a rope around half a dozen dead men and the horse could pull them.
Wonder if there was more solemnity with 'ours' as opposed to 'theirs' or whether they tipped the commoners in the same pits
The proximity of the 'Vallee aux Clercs" to the traditional battlefield tempts one to think that at least an official count of the bodies was taken and recorded, probably with a quick check of belts, pockets, etc. as one would not wish them to take unrighteous mammon into the next life ;), and then the locals were summoned with pick, spade, horse and wagon and told to get on with it. The pits would presumably be blessed as consecrated ground prior to digging them out or at least before filling them in.
This assumes that the name 'Vallee aux Clercs" dates from around the time of the battle and was not a later - or earlier - attribution.
Conjecturing here, but the few fallen English would perhaps have received separate burial courtesy of their own priests and army: they were a) the winners, b) practically professional soldiers and c) free yeomen, who were apparently more valued than the French commoners. I am not sure if any sources deal with this aspect, but Englishmen tended to wish to be buried at home if at all possible, and Edward III was a not ungenerous master who might have happily borne the cost of sending the remains, or at least the bones, home.
One obvious points are that we don't know the vallee aux clercs gets its name from the battle - it is supposition. In the same way the new map claims Jarden de Geneve must connect it to Genoese crossbowmen. While Genevois may be French for Genoese, Geneve is Geneva and is also a girls name, so there are alternatives.
On burying the dead, I suspect a more respectful approach than dragging them several miles roped to a horse. There are pictures of collecting the battlefield dead and they involve carts or large sacks, presumably of canvas (though canvas wasn't common inland, so getting enough must have been hard). Common burial pits were usually dug by local labour and burials supervised by the local clergy. More important persons might be collected for individual burial, middling persons for group burial in a local church or abbey burial ground. While the former might be transported some distance (being boiled or embalmed first), the massed dead would be buried very locally simply for practical reasons (speed is of the essense especially in hot weather and you can't tie up your labour and all the local carts and horses for too long). So, the burial pits at the traditional site are unlikely to connect to a battle at the new site. But then, we aren't certain they are war graves rather than plague pits.
Another thing that the traditional site has is a suggested area where the horses were buried - the locals had to dispose of probably 1500 dead horses. Jim can no doubt comment about how easy it is to get horses to drag horse carcasses about.
1500 dead horses?
Bleed what could be bled, frantically dash round looking for salt, smoke what you didn't have salt for, and make a lot of spiced sausage from those which weren't bled properly?
I suspect the army left holding the battlefield would have made big inroads into the dead horse situation
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 03, 2015, 09:47:32 AM
I suspect the army left holding the battlefield would have made big inroads into the dead horse situation
I thought about this and doubtless horse steak featured a lot on the menu (provided it was not a fast day). But that is a huge number of horses to eat and the date is August - you'll soon lose the use of it. It is possible that the carcasses were burned - the religious qualms about burning humans didn't apply - so something like Foot and Mouth with great big horse pyres? Or dig more pits and throw rotting horses in?
I suspect the local dogs, swine, etc. plus the usual ravens and wolves would not be too particular about helping themselves to whatever equine parts the humans had left behind. I do not recall any battle burials (cf. Visby) involving horses, so perhaps Jim's thinking has some basis.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 03, 2015, 10:41:00 AM
I thought about this and doubtless horse steak featured a lot on the menu (provided it was not a fast day).
Along with horse soup, horse d'oeuvres, horse stew and maybe a weak beer about which it is best not to speculate. There was a traditional saying in English to denote serious hunger, to wit: "I could eat a horse!"
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 30, 2015, 10:46:09 AM
Yes, I already have a shed load of questions but the archaeology is critical. The current site is bafflingly short of archaeological evidence and is one of its weaknesses, so a better site does need to display more evidence in that regard, as well as meeting needs like the presence of a windmill on the hill and more on the nature of the "massive" ditch, both of which an archaeological survey could reveal
I saw a documentary some years ago where investigatirs had used metal detectors to establish the position of the opposing sides at Towton from the remains of arrowheads in the ground. Has any similar investigation been undertaken at any of the putative Crecy sites?
There has been some research at the traditional site, which has delivered very little material. Some of this has been put down to the fact that the original land surface has in parts been buried (by waste from a sugar beet factory). The absence is, however, quite noticeable. But then, there is virtually nothing from the traditional sites of Agincourt or Hastings either. The amount of debris on a pre-gunpowder battlefield is hard to be sure of. For example, there have been quite extensive excavations on the known battlefield of Aljubarrotta but little debris. Others reveal a lot more. Some of this may relate to how well the site was picked over after the battle, which in turn could have all sorts of factors involved (e.g. state of the ground - muddy, heavy vegetation etc etc)
remember these people were used to preserving food
But on top of what could be got away and saved for eating, I'm pretty sure the wildlife would soon mop up the rest of it.
I've seen a 40kg lamb eaten (mainly) by one buzzard over about a week
Admittedly when it tried to get airborne it was a source of embarrassment to itself and to onlookers but it certainly put the meat away :-)
My guess is that a couple of weeks later there'd be nothing much left other than scattered bones. (Bones scattered over a couple of mile radius, it's ridiculous the distance foxes and others will drag bits of carcass! )
Apparently the big difference is made by the nature of the soil which,mf acid, is going to devour bone, clothing, leather, wood and iron.
Just to note the new publication date is 30th. November.
I finally got the book and have read the article. I think my overall impression is that, although the author points up weaknesses in the traditional site, he doesn't fully convince in his argument for the new one. Most sources that express an opinion do place the battle near or "next to" Crecy. He interprets many of these to mean the forest of Crecy - a vast expanse of woodland, not the town. Some of his place of his arguments are quite tenuous. One of the few topographical references, to a place called Westglise, is usually interpreted as Watglise, just north of the traditional battlefield. Livingstone instead says it is a misunderstanding of the phrase "ouest de l'eglise" and the new battlefield is west of a church! (actually a priory). There is a lovely circular argument based on the identification of Labroie, which is usually considered to be Labroye, north of the traditional battlefield. The author says this should be read as Labraie "the marsh". There are lots of marshes but it could apply to Sailly-Bray. If the English army was marching from Sailly-Bray it couldn't reach the traditional battlefield in time for the battle, so therefore the traditional battlefield is wrong. A lot of his arguments seem to be of "it can be made to fit, therefore it proves" variety. The field name evidence was discussed in the earlier discussion. Probably best of these is the identification of the "Mont de Crecy" in a road name. This is usually identified as a hill near Crecy, so it could be of interest. Yes, it is an interesting co-incidence that a field is called La Herse but only one mention of a "herse" is made in our sources and this is to "in the manner of" a herse, not to a position.
Looking at the position, Livingstone makes a good point that the French would suddenly come upon the English when marching up the road (if the woods were in the same place). But if the traditional battlefield is tough for cavalry, the new one is suicidal. A ninefoot deep ditch runs across the front of the position (I'd guess either a prehistoric earthwork or perhaps a forest boundary - certainly not a field defence). Wouldn't our sources have made much of this, with the French cavalry having to cross it to get at the English men-at-arms? The only mention of ditches in the sources is the wagon laager tradition mentions ditches dug to reinforce points in the lager round the back of the army.
There are no reports of grave pits (but then, there are no confirmed ones on the traditional site) and no archaeological finds (ditto on the traditional site) Finally, as this is getting a bit long, there is is no windmill anywhere near (even if we rejected the traditional one, there were several more around Crecy).
So, I think the new site is worth a metal detector survey, a bit of archaeological fieldwork (what is that ditch and when was it there) and some historical geography (was there a gap in the forest edge there in the middle ages or is it a bit of later clearance?). Let's await developments.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 03, 2015, 09:25:18 AM
So, I think the new site is worth a metal detector survey, a bit of archaeological fieldwork (what is that ditch and when was it there) and some historical geography (was there a gap in the forest edge there in the middle ages or is it a bit of later clearance?). Let's await developments.
It does sound as if it will need all the help it can get. ;)